a clear separation of politics and religion became possible, it took more time in the Colonies where various Protestant sects and off-shoots (Mormonism, anyone?) were still busy trying to create religion-based states.

The "wall of separation between Church and State" in the newly founded US looked no less firm than in the Revolutionary France. Famously, the Founding Fathersforgot to reference God in the Constitution. The liberal Scottish Realism, Deism, Unitarianism rather dominated the American thought between the first two Great Awakenings. The direct opposition was firstly from Romanticism, Transcendentalism. Protestant evangelism revived via anti-authoritarian reform societies rather than large organized Churches. The Mormons, Shakers, Millerites were withdrawing Come-Outers, an extreme end of the market for the American existential combination of short term pessimism (for moral corruption or so) and some longer term optimism. The evolution of American religious authority is complicated.

The "wall of separation between Church and State" in the newly founded US

But that's the Enlightement already. And a direct reaction to the religious madness of Protestant sects in the preceding 150 years, a period during which Europe already got past that phase. The Mormons, meanwhile, could pursue a state led by their religious leaders in the 19th century, which was ended in 1858 by force (see Utah War and subsequent direct federal law enforcement). Only from then on can you speak of a full enforcement of the wall between Church and State.

Why do you bring "it took more time in the Colonies" and "Enlightenment already" together?

Surely, most North American colonies were founded as religious projects, escaping religious prosecution in Europe. But they were disintegrating as such after a generation, as utopias. With so much fertile land around and so much labour to be done, authoritarian rule did not have a chance. Now US is dense, squeezed, resources expensive for most - thus a large potential for Big Brother.

There is a serious discontinuity of religious "madness" of the first settlers and later Awakenings. Romanticism and those Great Awakenings were direct anti-intellectual reactions to Enlightenment, industrial revolution. Apparently, there are human aspirations that progressive developments do not satisfy still, nor understand fairly. And that is where there could be a serious similarity with Islam - the cyclical pattern of stronger anti-intellectual sentiments. But then, differences in this similarity would be just as interesting.

Utah was not the first territory the Mormons were escaping to. Yes, they were seeking a religous state, theodemocracy. But they developed in opposition to the established religion and politics. Thus shelving them on the Christian spectrum without a footnote is not remarkably illuminating.

Why do you bring "it took more time in the Colonies" and "Enlightenment already" together?

I thought we were in agreement that Church–State separation was definite with the Enlightenment, and only disputed how much older it was. (You traced it back to the Treat of Worms, I totally disagreed and traced it back to aftermath of the 30 Years War only, and even later elsewhere.) So when you brought the Great Awakenings into discussion, it had little to do with my comment it was a reply to, which was more about the madness of the first settlers.

I don't get your protest about my arguments regarding Mormonism. I didn't claim Utah was the first territory they were escaping to, I claimed they actually established a theocracy (which was crushed by force). Opposition to established religion and politics is an almost universal feature of religions when they are new.

In the context of differences between Islam and Christianity, "definite" Church-State separation is a red herring in other galaxy. I argued that Islam did not come significantly close to the argument of Worms.

The Mormons only went so far to establish their theo(demo)crasy. ISIS would go back a thousand years, blow up the planet.

Mad first settlers in America? That would be the ones who saw only Cortez and Pizzaro as viable business models. Religion based settlements let their utopian "madness" dissipate very quickly. Interesting religion started with Great Awakenings.

I argued that Islam did not come significantly close to the argument of Worms.

And I argued that Worms wasn't a separation of church of state, quite the opposite. If we drop "Church-State separation" and look whether there is a parallel to Worms in the Islamic world, or specifically in Sunni Islam, I agree that there isn't, since there is no parallel to the Pope (see upthread). Then again, I question the significance of this difference.

The Mormons only went so far to establish their theo(demo)crasy. ISIS would go back a thousand years, blow up the planet.

What kind of argument is this? The Mormons went quite far in establishing their fake democratic theocracy (including death squads), which existed for decades, until they were checked by outside intervention. The Protestant madness which you claim dissipated "very quickly" also endured at least decades (in the case of the Amish, much longer). How far the only few years old ISIS will get, we'll see. I argued in my diary that ISIS may claim they want to go back a thousand years, but they are more Mad Max than Middle Ages.

Finally, I thought we were debating all of Islam, not just ISIS, and you don't want to pick extreme examples?...

Interesting religion started with Great Awakenings.

You again throw out a bold claim you don't elaborate on. Why do you think only the Great Awakenings are interesting (and when phrased that way, not just for you subjectively, but objectively)?

ISIS obviously has deep cultural, political influence - far deeper than the Mormoms (or any extreme Christianity sect) ever did. Apart from the concrete Daesh form, their medieval grounding should be taken seriously.

You again throw out a bold claim you don't elaborate on.

Our perception is too asymetric. I can only encourage do targeted reading (or audio learning).